Quran challenge

The Quran Challenge

The strange thing about the Quran is that it constantly has ‘God’ speaking claiming that He is the source of the Quran, whereas the Bible rarely has God having to constantly declare to the reader that He is the ultimate author of the Book. The Quran goes a step further, bragging about itself as a wonderful book insisting no one can make even a single Surah (chapter) like the Quran because it’s so great. We see this in Quran verses like:

Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants."—Quran 17:88

And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.—Quran 2:23

This claim is strange since a number of chapters of the Quran are fairly simple. Such as:

Surah 109

Say, "O disbelievers,

I do not worship what you worship.

Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.

Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.

Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.

For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

 Surah 109’s pattern is easily reproducible and is only a few lines long! Yet, apparently this is too difficult for us non-Muslims to reproduce!

Surah 108

Indeed, We have granted you, [O Muhammad], al-Kawthar.

So pray to your Lord and sacrifice [to Him alone].

Indeed, your enemy is the one cut off.

Surah 108 is a mere 3 verses long! This surah does not look complicated either! Yet, apparently the person that made the Quran thinks producing 3 lines would be like landing a man on the Sun! If someone handed you this Surah, would you automatically be able to detect its divine origin? Or would you just assume some human wrote it? 

Surah 106

 For the accustomed security of the Quraysh -

Their accustomed security [in] the caravan of winter and summer -

Let them worship the Lord of this House,

Who has fed them, [saving them] from hunger and made them safe, [saving them] from fear.

Its just another short Surah, only a few lines long.

Surah 103

By time,

Indeed, mankind is in loss,

Except for those who have believed and done righteous deeds and advised each other to truth and advised each other to patience.

 

Another 3 verses that are IMPOSSIBLE to match in style! The Quran does not seem to state explicitly who is the judge of what qualifies as being LIKE the surah is, but it would seem to make most sense that it would be the disbeliever of the Quran, since he is the one that must be convinced. The average Muslim on the other hand would never concede that the unbeliever had made a Surah that sounds like it is in the Quran, because doing so would be an admission that there is nothing divine about the Quran AT ALL. 

Perhaps this "Surah" is like the Surahs of the Quran:

"If there were two valleys full of riches for the son of Adam,

he would long for a third valley,

and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust."

 

Does this sound like it could be a Surah or at least part of one? Why or why not?

 

 

Absurd things in the Talmud

Here are some absurd things in the Talmud that antimissionaries would prefer people to never see, if they were in the New Testament, antimissionaries would exploit these--even if they were symbolic, metaphorical, stories etc. Some of the Talmud account demonstrate the perversion of the writer of the Talmud, or the rabbis he was supposedly quoting

God praying! Talmudic account has God praying (interestingly they mock NT because Jesus is called God can He prays), this is found by Protestant apologist Michael Brown:

R. Johanan says in the name of R. Jose: How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, says prayers? Because it says: Even them will I bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer.  It is not said, 'their prayer', but 'My prayer'; hence [you learn] that the Holy One, blessed be He, says prayers. --Babylonian Talmud Berakoth 7a

Note the Quran also has Allah praying (see Quran 33:56, Aisha Bewley, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), Book of Knowledge, 241:1387 and quoted here.) 

Rahab sex: A Rabbi claimed to know of a sexual issue men that had sex with Rahab the harlot had--despite her being dead for about 1500+ years when the rabbis were alive and when the Talmud was written.  It is absurd to think this would have been a tradition passed down from the times of Joshua (and the other rabbi in the passage didn't seem to know of it)

R. Isaac said: Whosoever repeats [the name] Rahab, Rahab, become immediately subject to an onset of issue.  Thereupon R. Rahman said to him: I have repeated it and was not in any way affected.  R. Isaac replied: I speak only of one who knew her intimately (and recalls her likeness). "--Ta'anit 5b

Aliens from outer space!! The Talmud mentions one of many opinions that Meroz in Judges 5:23 refers to a Star (that is a planet) and the inhabitants of it are cursed for not helping.

From the [same] text: Because they [the denizens of Meroz] came not to the help of the Lord. And, said ‘Ulla, Barak pronounced the shammetha against Meroz with [the blast of] four hundred horns. Some say that Meroz was [the name of] a great personage; others say that it was [the name of] a star, as it is written [there]: They fought from Heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera. Whence do we derive that his property may be forfeited?--Mo'ed Katan 16b

In fact the Jewish website chabad.org says

"It would be limiting G-d's power to say that He could not have placed life on other planets. In fact, there is a reference in the biblical Book of Judges (5:23) to an inhabited place called Maroz, which the Talmud identifies as a star."

In fact the great Jewish bible commentator Rashi (the most respected rabbinical commentator on that Hebrew Bible) who was a medieval French Jew writes (alluding to the Talmudic passage I quote),

"Some say it was a star and some say he was a prominent person who was near the battle area and yet did not come."--Rashi Commentary on Judges 5:23

Gentiles that keep the Sabbath deserve to die! One Talmudic rabbi teaches Jews that keep that Sabbath deserve to die--though its generally agreed that the rabbi is not saying Gentiles should ACTUALLY be killed for this.

 Resh Lakish also said: A heathen who keeps a day of rest, deserves death, for it is written, And a day and a night they shall not rest, and a master has said: Their prohibition is their death sentence.  Rabina said: Even if he rested on a Monday. Now why is this not included in the seven Noachian laws? — Only negative injunctions are enumerated, not positive ones.--Sanhedrin 58b

Maimonides on this says that Gentiles should NOT be killed, but must be beaten for studying the torah, having a Sabbath day, or making a religious practice.

A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should only be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot. Similarly, a gentile who rests, even on a weekday, observing that day as a Sabbath, is obligated to die. Needless to say, he is obligated for that punishment if he creates a festival for himself.  The general principle governing these matters is: They are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the mitzvot or retain their statutes without adding or detracting from them. If a gentile studies the Torah, makes a Sabbath, or creates a religious practice, a Jewish court should beat him, punish him, and inform him that he is obligated to die. However, he is not to be executed.--Mishneh Torah, Sefer Shoftim, Melachim uMilchamot, Halacha 9

Ironically....

Do not save the Gentile on a Sabbath since he does not keep the Sabbath! 

....he was, however, told by Abaye that the Jewish woman could offer the excuse, 'Only for our own, who keep the Sabbath, may we waive it, but we must not waive the Sabbath for you who do not keep it.' R. Joseph also had a mind to say that even suckling for payment should be allowed because of ill-feeling; but Abaye said to him: She can excuse herself by saying, 'I want to get married,' if she is unmarried; or, if she be married, 'I will not degrade myself before my husband.' R. Joseph further had in mind to say, in regard to what has been taught that in the case of idolaters and shepherds of small cattle one is not obliged to bring them up [from a pit] though one must not cast them in it  — that for payment one is obliged to bring them up on account of ill feeling. Abaye, however, said to him: He could offer such excuses as, 'I have to run to my boy who is standing on the roof', or, 'I have to keep an appointment at the court.'--Adovah Zarah 26a

This Talmudic rabbi applies this case of returning a favor for being a midwife to non Jew to the helping of non Jews in general on the Sabbath--do not do it. Though the other rabbis seem to say its ok so as to not make the Jews look bad. However, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimonis (Maimonides) is considered one of the greatest scholars of Jewish law, he interprets this passage in a very harsh way. He is so respected his writing Thirteen Fundamental Principles is considered to be Jewish dogma for today's Orthodox Jews. His commentary on the Talmudic passage is as follows:

With regard to a gentile idolater with whom we are not at war, a Jewish shepherd of small livestock, and the like, by contrast, we should not try to cause their deaths. It is, however, forbidden to save their lives if their lives are threatened. For example, if such a person fell into the sea, one should not rescue him. [Leviticus 19:16] states: "Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is at stake." This does not apply with regard to such individuals, because they are not "your brothers."--Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 4:11 by Maimonides (Rambam) translated by Chabad.org

 טז [יא] אבל הגויים שאין בינינו וביניהם מלחמה, ורועי בהמה דקה מישראל וכיוצא בהן--אין מסבבים להן המיתה. ואסור להצילן; אם נטו למות, כגון שראה אחד מהן שנפל לים--אינו מעלהו: שנאמר "לא תעמוד על דם ריעך" ( ויקרא יט,טז ), ואין זה ריעך.--Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 4:11 by Maimonides, original Hebrew Text

Some Rabbinical Jews and antimissionaries might say "look a Jew is mentioned there too that should not be saved" however, Maimonides immediately comments that this only refers to Jews that are not observant of the Torah:

When does the above apply? With regard to a Jew who sins and perseveres in his wickedness, continually repeating it - e.g., shepherds of small livestock who show no consideration for the prohibition against robbery and continue in their perversity.

When, by contrast, a Jew commits transgressions, but does not maintain his wickedness continually, merely occasionally sinning for his own personal satisfaction - e.g., one who eats non-kosher food for pleasure - it is a mitzvah to save his life, and it is forbidden to stand idly by when his life is threatened.--Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 4:12 by Maimonides (Rambam) translated by Chabad.org

 יז [יב] במה דברים אמורים, בישראל בעל עבירות העומד ברשעו ושונה בו תמיד, כגון הרועים בהמה דקה שפקרו בגזל, והם הולכים באיוולתן. אבל ישראל בעל עבירות שאינו עומד ברשעו תמיד, אלא עושה עבירות להנית עצמו, כגון אוכל נבילות לתיאבון--מצוה להצילו, ואסור לעמוד על דמו. --Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 4:12 by Maimonides, original Hebrew Text

This ruling was affirmed as recent as the 20th century by the chief Shephardic Rabbi in Israel, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef.

"If a gentile were to get injured in a car accident during Sabbath, and he is brought to the hospital – Israel must not treat him," he said, explaining that "if the particular procedures come from rabbis (de-rabbanan), then they might be permitted, but if they stem from prohibitions in the Torah (de-'oraita), then they are not allowed, as the Torah forbids to violate the Sabbath for gentiles."  Rabbi Yosef expounded on the problem, saying that the Mishnah Berurah explicitly says that "all religious physicians who treat gentiles on the Sabbath or violating the Sabbath; however, in reality the patients are brought to the hospital and must be treated. The doctors' license says they must treat all patients without distinction of faith or race, and if they don’t, the State could revoke their license and also punish them. So what should the poor doctors do?"--Rabbi Ovadia Yosef quoted in Rabbi Yosef: Treating gentiles violates Sabbath, ynetnews [The Rabbi comes up with a solution to this problem--but only because he does not want the Jewish doctor to lose his job.]

Mishnah Berurah is a 19th century text that comments on this matter. After all is said on done on this matter, Jewish law seems to be clear that a Jew should not break the Sabbath but to save another Sabbath keeper [ie Jew, since non Jews deserve to die for keeping], but they find ways for allowing Jews to help gentiles on the Sabbath--in order to save a life--their own Jewish life (not necessarily the gentiles) since the Jews fear that their behavior might cause the Jew to lose his job, or be the cause of more persecution of Jews in things like pogroms. Racism in Jewish literature is somewhat discussed on this Jewish site. The aforementioned rabbi Ovadia Yosef has made racist statements that speak of Jewish supremacy, such bad that the American Jewish organization the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had to condemn his comments about gentiles, see here.  

These teachings are inherently inferior to those of the Lord Jesus, who preached against some of the errors and lack of love of the Pharisees, He affirmed one of the greatest commandments is to love your neighbor, when asked who your neighbor he said:

[Jesus said]: A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who also stripped him, and having wounded him went away, leaving him half dead. And it chanced, that a certain priest went down the same way: and seeing him, passed by.  In like manner also a Levite, when he was near the place and saw him, passed by. But a certain Samaritan being on his journey, came near him; and seeing him, was moved with compassion. And going up to him, bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine: and setting him upon his own beast, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.  And the next day he took out two pence, and gave to the host, and said: Take care of him; and whatsoever thou shalt spend over and above, I, at my return, will repay thee. Which of these three, in thy opinion, was neighbour to him that fell among the robbers? 

But he said: He that shewed mercy to him.

And Jesus said to him: Go, and do thou in like manner.--Luke 10:29-37

Other topics will include the Talmud view of Abortion and life--which seems similar to Aristotle and more...

Addendum: "It is Torah!"

Kosher toilet etiquette

Rabbi Akiva was a prominent rabbi in the talmud, its related he learned about proper Jewish defecation by following his teacher to the latrines.

It was taught in a baraita in tractate Derekh Eretz that Rabbi Akiva said: I once entered the bathroom after my teacher Rabbi Yehoshua, and I learned three things from observing his behavior: I learned that one should not defecate while facing east and west, but rather while facing north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself while standing, but while sitting, in the interest of modesty; and I learned that one should not wipe with his right hand, but with his left. Ben Azzai, a student of Rabbi Akiva, said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent that you observed that much? He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn.--Talmud, Tractate Berkhot 62a

Its absurdly note that despite the end of the above where ben Azzai seems to criticize his teacher, the same passage state ben Azzai copied the actions and followed Akiva to the toilet. 

Rabbinical Peepingtom:

Not to be outdone, the same passage of the Talmud relates a student secretly wanted to "learn" about kosher sex:

the Gemara relates that Rav Kahana entered and lay beneath Rav’s bed. He heard Rav chatting and laughing with his wife, and seeing to his needs, i.e., having relations with her. Rav Kahana said to Rav: The mouth of Abba, Rav, is like one whom has never eaten a cooked dish, i.e., his behavior was lustful. Rav said to him: Kahana, you are here? Leave, as this is an undesirable mode of behavior. Rav Kahana said to him: It is Torah, and I must learn.--Talmud, Tractate Berkhot 62a

Hilariously, it is reminiscent of modern nonsense done "in the name of science."  

As a sidenote, these accounts seem to explain the origin of Islamic toilet etiquette (use left hand, do not face Mecca, or face away from Mecca in the bathroom)

To be continued....

The Quran mistakes a Rabbi for God!

In Quran 5 the Quran tells the Islamic version of the story of Cain and Abel, and adds words by "God." Note the "WE" refers to "Allah" speaking.

 مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَٰلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا ۚ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي الْأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ  --Quran 5:32     

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.--Quran 5:32 (31 in some) Chapter (5) sūrat l-māidah (The Table spread with Food) Sahih International

In fact Ibn Kathir applied this verse to Muslims:

.....Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people." In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,--Ibn Kathir

Notice the verse only applies to killing/saving a Muslim!

 

However, the Quran is mistaken, since Allah is not actually speaking here, in fact the Quran largely plagiarized this from the Jewish Babylonian Talmud (which is NOT part of the Holy Bible, but the writings of Jewish Rabbis after the fall of the Temple), and the speaker is a Jewish Rabbi. The Talmud from Sanhedrin 37A in the Mishnah reads:

דמי אחיך צועקים אינו אומר דם אחיך אלא דמי אחיך דמו ודם זרעותיו דבר אחר דמי אחיך שהיה דמו מושלך על העצים ועל האבנים לפיכך נברא אדם יחידי ללמדך שכל המאבד נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו איבד עולם מלא וכל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קיים עולם מלא --Sanhedrin 37A תלמוד  בבלי סנהדרין

"THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER CRY UNTO ME" NOT THE BLOOD OF THY BROTHER, BUT THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, IS SAID — i.e., HIS BLOOD AND THE BLOOD OF HIS [POTENTIAL] DESCENDANTS. (ALTERNATIVELY, THE BLOODS OF THY BROTHER, TEACHES THAT HIS BLOOD WAS SPLASHED OVER TREES AND STONES.)  FOR THIS REASON WAS MAN CREATED ALONE, TO TEACH THEE THAT WHOSOEVER DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL*, SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE WORLD.--Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 37A *"Of Israel is only found in some copies

Going to the link provided and simply reading the Talmudic quote makes it evident the speak is not God and is just a man commenting on the scripture that why it says "scripture ascribes to him as though....". It is evident Muhammad and friends had no clue what they were doing--they didn't know this saying was from a Jewish rabbi and NOT God, in doing so they unwittingly made a Jewish Rabbi a god, as opposed to what they did with the other Jewish rabbi-- the Lord Jesus (Holy is His Name)--making Him a mere man!

Abraham's Bosom in the Talmud

Today, I was asked by a Jewish friend where the term "Bosom of Abraham" is from that Jesus uses in Luke 16 in the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, since she did not believe it to be Jewish at all.

When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham.--Luke 16:22

 

It is possible it was a term Jesus coined, but it's more likely that it was an already used term. Anyway, the term is used in Jewish literature, according to Jewish Encyclopedia:

In Ḳid. 72b, Adda bar Ahaba, a rabbi of the third century, is said to be "sitting in the bosom of Abraham," which means that he has entered paradise. With this should be compared the statement of R. Levi (Gen. R. xlviii.): "In the world to come Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna, permitting none to enter who bears the seal of the covenant"--Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, Abraham's Bosom

Looking up this reference of Kid 72b, it's found at the very end of the Kiddushin 72b (Gemera) (קידושין  עב,ב גמרא) (this is a tractate of the Babylonian Talmud) it reads:

דאגמא איכא בבבל אדא בר אהבה יש בה  היום יושב בחיקו של אברהם

"There is a Fort Agama in Babylon wherein dwells Adda b. Ahabah: today he sits in Abraham's lap;"--Kiddushin 72b (Gemera)

The word יושב  means to "sit" or "dwell," and it frequently used in the Hebrew bible for people settling down or living in an area (as well as just sitting). The phrase that can be translated as "bosom/chest of Abraham" is בחיקו של אברהם , the word של meaning "his", בחיקו (b'heyko) means "in bosom/lap," and with אברהם meaning Abraham. 

The word בחיקו 'in the bosom' is used the Hebrew bible twice:

Proverbs 6:27--הֲיַחְתֶּה אִישׁ אֵשׁ בְּחֵיקוֹ;    וּבְגָדָיו, לֹא תִשָּׂרַפְנָה 

Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?--Proverbs 6:27

Exodus 4:6--וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה לוֹ עוֹד, הָבֵא-נָא יָדְךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ, וַיָּבֵא יָדוֹ, בְּחֵיקוֹ; וַיּוֹצִאָהּ, וְהִנֵּה יָדוֹ מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג 

And the LORD said furthermore unto him: 'Put now thy hand into thy bosom.' And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow.--Exodus 4:6

 The word חיקו is found around 34 times in the Hebrew bible, but I use these specific examples to demonstrate it can mean "chest" or "bosom", specifically (Moses did not put his hand in his lap but just to his chest!). I generally do not use the term "bosom" since its weird in modern speech to say a man has a bosom.

Conclusion:

The phrase "bosom of Abraham" is used in Jewish literature (at least this one time) and is not unique to the New Testament.

Infant Baptism in the Talmud

Today, I was in a room where Anticatholics, who are Reformed, in this case reformed Baptist, insisted infant baptism is completely without basis in ancient Israel, one of them even said Jewish Encyclopedia does not mention it, and he also alluded to the Talmud implying that it too does not teach infant baptism. I objected and said if a baby were part of the family of a "ger" a convert to Judaism--the child would be baptized. I showed them this website which states the procedures for a baby converting:

The conversion of a female infant or child according to Conservative and Orthodox practices only requires tevilah (immersion in a ritual bath called a mikveh). A male child also requires immersion in the mikveh. While parents might have trepidation about immersing a newborn completely in water, the supervising rabbi will facilitate the procedure with great care ensuring that the infant is safe during this momentary immersion.....A beit din, usually consisting of three rabbis, is convened for the immersion. Parents can enter the mikveh. If the children are old enough, they recite the needed prayers; if not, a rabbi does so for them. After the tevilah ceremony is completed, and a name chosen if one has not already been selected, the child is declared by the beit din to be Jewish.

Furthermore, I have found in the Talmud, which they requested I use, it states:

R. Jose stated, It happened at 'En Bol that the infant was made to undergo ritual immersion  before her mother; and Rabbi stated, It once happened at Beth She'arim that the infant was made to undergo ritual immersion  before her mother; and R. Joseph stated, It once happened at Pumbeditha that the infant was made to undergo ritual immersion  before her mother;  One can well understand the incidents spoken of by R. Joseph and Rabbi  since [immersion was necessary as a protection for] the terumah  of Palestine; but why was that necessary in the case spoken of by R. Joseph,  seeing that Samuel had laid down: The terumah of a country outside the Land of Israel is not forbidden unless [it came in contact] with a person whose uncleanness emanated from his body,  and this applies only to eating but not to contact?-- Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah 32a

 As we see, this issue was not even one that Rabbis debated over, it was already accepted as a fact that babies were baptized, and why wouldn't they be, they can become ritually "unclean" like adults! 

What, however, of the following statement of Raba. 'If a pregnant gentile woman was converted, there is no need for her son to perform ritual immersion'.  Why is there no need for him to perform immersion?-- Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah57a

Note the discussion here is why SHOULDN'T a baby still in a mothers womb be subject to baptism after birth, the reason is because his mother while still pregnant converted(and assumedly was baptized) therefore making the child have no need for baptism in the Jewish mindset.

Also, Tractate Kethuboth11a discusses the conversion of minors, including ones less than "three years and one day old" and states "A minor proselyte is immersed by the direction of the court."

There are other sources too, but this should suffice for now.